Women in U.S. infantry (USMC, Rangers, etc. - merged)

[Jarnhamar]

I can't count how many times women at work have gotten out of doing stuff at work because to heavy, or that's a man's job or whatever, or gotten off work because of bad periods or silly stuff like that.

Leadership failure.

and the other major gripe...STANDARDS...it is complete BS that a woman who has to do the same job as me, is not held to the same standard.

Example?

and yes I do feel that when we're a group of guys we have a certain dynamic, throw a woman in the mix and that dynamic is completely upset, and ruined.

it does tend to disrupt certain settings.

Not to say I haven't met some women (probably 2-3) who could hold their own and etc...but I have found that to be an exception and not a regular happening.

Depends which environment.

 

[Journeyman]

The author essentially says that putting women in combat positions should not be done. It's already being done. Ergo, a moot point.

And I'm saying that women being in a position where they can, and have, been shot at is not the same as being in the infantry.

Again, I'm not offering views one way or the other on what the US military should be doing, merely that you're oversimplifying what some of us do by saying 'anyone whose been in harm's way may as well be infantry -- they've already been there, done that.'

 

[Jarnhamar]

Really? I never would have figured that if you hadn't pointed it out.  :sarcasm:

I find many people confuse 'being in combat' with doing what the infantry does.

A  reporter who is locked away in the back of an armored vehicle has been in combat.

 

[cupper]

And I'm saying that women being in a position where they can, and have, been shot at is not the same as being in the infantry.

Again, I'm not offering views one way or the other on what the US military should be doing, merely that you're oversimplifying what some of us do by saying 'anyone whose been in harm's way may as well be infantry -- they've already been there, done that.'

You are reading way more into what I am saying than is really there. I never claimed that being shot at is the same as being in the Infantry.

The point I am making is that the previous ban was was in place to keep women from coming into combat situations. Period. Full Stop.

They are coming into combat situations because the nature of war has changed since the ban was put in place. And they being assigned to combat units in positions or taskings which are allowed under the preclusion, but are still going on patrol and entering into direct combat. It doesn't qualify them as an infanteer, tanker or gunner. And nor do I believe it should.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Just to throw a tangent in, while we're at it, let's get more rich kids to join. They seem to be one of the most 'under represented' groups, to the detriment of the democratic decision making process regardign military deployments in most western nations (although I personally know quite a few kids who were easily multi-millionaires who became soldiers and Officers in the British Army):

Rich Kids At War

The U.S. armed forces recruiters have noted that a long time trend, that of more recruits from the middle and upper classes, is continuing. This top 20 percent of the population (in terms of income and social class) was never noted for sending many of its kids into military service during peacetime. And those that did go, usually went, via ROTC programs at college, which enabled students to graduate with an officers commission, and an obligation to serve as such for three or four years. When the draft was made permanent in the late 1940s (the first time that had ever happened in peacetime), the pattern didn't change. The military only needed a fraction of the draft age population, so it was easy to avoid service by staying in college, or getting a job that kept you out of uniform. The upper class kids that did get drafted, were eagerly sought after to fill administrative and technical jobs they already had some education or experience for.

When the draft ended in 1972, the upper class kids stayed away from volunteering. At first. But when the military began raising recruit standards in the 1980s, the military began, mostly via word-of-mouth, losing it's bad reputation. Right after the Vietnam war, the military was full of angry, and often inept, people. Lots of good officers and troops got out. But by the 1980s, that had passed, and by the 1990s, it became more common to see kids from the high end high schools, and colleges, joining. For many, it was for the adventure. The working class kids joined for technical jobs, so they could learn valuable job skills, in addition to earning money for college or technical school when they got out. So the combat units tended to be more upper class than the support units.

At the same time, the old, Vietnam era, myth that only the poor and uneducated joined, persisted, even though it was never true. Even when the draft was in effect, the military only accepted the above average kids. This was even more true as time went by. Thus even the recruits from the poorest families, tended to be healthier, and better educated (had graduated from high school and done well on the standardized test all recruits take) than all of their peers (of the same age and gender). But now, kids from the wealthiest families are edging out those from the poorest ones, when it comes to getting into the military. In the last decade, the recruits from the poorest families has gone from about 20 percent, to about ten percent. Meanwhile, those from the top 20 percent of families (in terms of income) has gone from under 20 percent, to about 25 percent.

The big draw for many middle and upper class kids is the combination of adventure, public service and generous pay and benefits. The educational benefits mean you can save up $100,000 or more if you go to college. Unless your parents are very rich, this kind of benefit is a big deal. Plus, the military pay is good enough, especially if you live and eat on base, that you can get out after four years of active service with at least $20,000 in the bank (especially if you spent some time in a combat zone.) Another edge the upper class kinds have is they tend to be more physically fit (a third of all potential recruits are too fat to serve) and less likely to have been arrested (which makes it more difficult, but not impossible, to enlist.)

The military is well aware of the fact that an important reason for their success in Iraq and Afghanistan has been the quality of the troops. Everyone in uniform wants to keep the quality up.

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/Rich-Kids-At-War-11-12-2009.asp

We weren't soldiers

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/served.htm

 

[Infanteer]

War has changed. There is now no real front line or defined area of combat.

They are coming into combat situations because the nature of war has changed since the ban was put in place.

War has changed?  Nobody told me.  Front lines and defined areas of combat are not really old; they never existed in, say, the French and Indian War or the Thirty Years War.  Afghanistan 2006 really wasn't much different than Afghanistan 1842 except that the cannons shoot farther.

Anyone who tells you war has changed probably hasn't read (a) History or (b) Clausewitz.

 

[cupper]

:surrender:

 

[Journeyman]

Anyone who tells you war has changed probably hasn't read (a) History or (b) Clausewitz.

...or much of anything actually relating to the topic at hand -- but everyone's entitled to opinions, apparently.

This plaster's getting tough on my forehead;  I'm done.

 

[cupper]

Hey! It's not my fault that the title doesn't accurately reflect what actually has occurred. >

 

[Kirkhill]

War has changed?  Nobody told me.  Front lines and defined areas of combat are not really old; they never existed in, say, the French and Indian War or the Thirty Years War.  Afghanistan 2006 really wasn't much different than Afghanistan 1842 except that the cannons shoot farther.

Anyone who tells you war has changed probably hasn't read (a) History or (b) Clausewitz.

Infanteer:

War HAS changed.

It has changed back to what it was prior to the Race to the Sea.

2 years of butting heads (1915-1917) and then back to "too much geography and not enough soldiers".  I believe the Germans had more than a little difficulty maintaining secure lines of communication in the 1936-1945 era, as did the Russians, Chinese, Brits in Asia and Africa.....

Back to your regularly scheduled bun fight.  ;D

 

[Infanteer]

War hasn't changed.  It is still a violent competition of political will.

Warfare - how war is conducted - has, but not in the ways suggested above.  Someone getting brewed up by an Afghan tribesman is not some monumental shift in either war or warfare; it's been happening for centuries.

 

[Jarnhamar]

I just had a great mental image of a legion sitting in a circle with a general saying "points to sustain, points to improve?"

Or a centurion beating the hell out of soldiers for wearing furcaps without their cloaks.

 

[Pandora114]

I just had a great mental image of a legion sitting in a circle with a general saying "points to sustain, points to improve?"

Or a centurion beating the hell out of soldiers for wearing furcaps without their cloaks.

Centurion...

My main mech is a centurion...I wouldn't want a centurion beating the hell out of me... *stomp* *owie*

 

[MikeL]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/29/marine-corps-women-combat/1873753/

Some Marine combat jobs may remain closed to women
Jim Michaels 5:56p.m. EST January 29, 2013

WASHINGTON — In his first interview since the Pentagon opened ground combat jobs to women, the commandant of the Marine Corps said some occupations may ultimately remain closed if only a small number qualify.

The Marines will not lower physical standards for certain specialties, Gen. James Amos told USA TODAY. "We can't afford to lower standards," he said. "We can't make adjustments on what's required on the battlefield.

"That's not why America has a Marine Corps," he said.

The Marine Corps, like the Army, is reviewing the physical and other standards required for direct combat fields that had previously been closed to female servicemembers.

MORE: Pentagon makes women in combat rule change official

The Pentagon last week ordered that the services provide the opportunity for women to enter all fields, including infantry, tanks, artillery and other combat arms.

The entire process could take years as the services develop and validate "gender neutral" standards. The secretary of Defense would have to approve any fields that remain closed to women.

"If the numbers are so small with regards to qualification, then there very may well be (job fields) that remain closed," Amos said. "Those will be few and far between."

Deploying only one or two female servicemembers in a unit, for example, would make it difficult for the women to succeed. "You want to have assimilation … so our females can mentor one another," Amos said.

Each of the previously closed fields will likely have its own set of requirements.

Some are easily quantifiable. For example, men and women wanting to serve on a tank crew would need to be able to lift a tank round, which weighs more than 40 pounds, and load it into the main gun. Other standards may be more difficult to quantify.

Amos said he is confident that the Marine Corps Infantry Officer Course (IOC), a mentally and physically grueling 13-week course, is an accurate measure of what it takes to successfully lead a rifle platoon in combat.

"There's no intention on my part of changing anything within the IOC curriculum," Amos said. The course has drawn attention because last year the Marine Corps began admitting women on an experimental basis.

The first two women admitted did not complete the course. Two more volunteers are expected to begin the course next month.

The infantry school for enlisted Marines, however, is being looked at closely to determine whether the standards are a good measurement of the physical and mental requirements of a Marine infantryman.

Once the standards and requirements among all specialties are codified they could then be incorporated into screening tests and specialty schools. The Marine Corps has more than 30 fields that are currently closed to women.

"This is not writing standards now in an effort to exclude females," Amos said. "This is writing and developing standards that quite frankly should have been developed years ago and have not been."

Amos said the Marine Corps will ensure that the opportunities are opened up without adjusting requirements.

"We've got too much combat experience for me to even suggest lowering the standards," Amos said. "So I'm not going to do it."

The Pentagon order will mark a change for all the services, but particularly for the Marine Corps, a lean expeditionary force that is organized and built around the infantry. The Marine Corps has the smallest percentage of women in its ranks.

Amos said the elite service is serious about opening opportunities for women.

"This isn't a subtle way of saying, 'OK, we're going to have standards and so we're going to exclude our women.' It's actually just the opposite."

There is broad public support for allowing women into combat arms jobs, according to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and The Washington Post. Of those surveyed, 66% supported allowing women into ground combat roles.

 

[daftandbarmy]

A woman passed the Royal Marines' All Arms Commando Course in 2002. They didn't drop their standards, apparently. However, women are not allowed to serve in 'front line' positions in the UK. Although if you don't consider 3 Commando Brigade a front line formation, I don't know what is:

Quick march - and into the mud

The stagnant, freezing bogs that lie ahead of me as I stand deep in the woods of Ripon, Yorkshire, neither look nor smell terribly inviting. And judging from the expressions on the faces of the 80 teenage boys standing beside me, who attend the nearby Army Foundation College in the hope of joining the infantry or the armoured corps, I am not the only person who thinks so. But all 81 of us have to run through these bogs, or "ponds" as they are euphemistically known, as part of an Army training exercise. "We found a dead squirrel in here last week," smiles Warrant Officer Dave Barnstaple, as I stare down at the muddy waters.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3299962/Quick-march-and-into-the-mud.html

 

[MikeL]

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2013/01/marine-amos-women-infantry-013013-w

Women in infantry ‘not a foregone conclusion’
By Dan Lamothe - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Jan 30, 2013 18:07:12 EST
No decision has been made on whether women will be allowed to join the Marine Corps’ infantry, reconnaissance and special operations units, the service’s commandant said in a recent letter to his fellow general officers.

The letter, obtained by Marine Corps Times, was distributed Jan. 24, the same day Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced the Pentagon’s decision to lift the 1994 Combat Exclusion Policy that prevented women from joining the military’s ground combat units. In it, Gen. Jim Amos said there are three years to collect the information that will determine which military occupational specialties should be opened to women — and which should remain closed.

Amos, who has been commandant since October 2010, said his successor will make those recommendations to the Pentagon after the research period ends in 2016.

“I believe we have created the conditions for him to provide his best analytically-informed military advice on this critical matter to the civilian leadership, who have the constitutionally-enshrined power of final decision,” Amos said in the letter. “I don’t know what my successor’s recommendation will be, but the end state is not a foregone conclusion, as some have suggested.

“The memorandum agreed to by all the service chiefs specifically states ‘… If we find that the assignment of women to a specific position or occupational specialty is in conflict with stated principles, we will request an exception to policy,” Amos wrote.

On Tuesday, Amos told USA Today that some specialties may remain closed if only a small number of women qualify for them.

“If the numbers are so small with regards to qualification, then there very may well be [job fields] that remain closed,” Amos said. “Those will be few and far between.”

Deploying only one or two female service members in a unit would make it tough for women to succeed in them, Amos acknowledged.

“You want to have assimilation … so our females can mentor one another,” he said.

 

[Smirnoff123]

I think that the USMC is going about it the right way by not lowering the standards but accepting the women who can meet the set ones.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think that the USMC is going about it the right way by not lowering the standards but accepting the women who can meet the set ones.

That is the obvious "right" answer, but as the reaction to the US decisions illustrates many people, on both sides of the question, are not interested in the "right" answer ~ just in the one which addresses their particular concerns. Some of those concerns have or accept no "standards" because they are based on deeply held cultural values.

 

[Old Sweat]

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gen-dempsey-if-women-can-t-meet-military-standard-pentagon-will-ask-does-it-really-have

And the Commandanat of the Marine Corps seems to not agree with the statement of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs position here.

 

[BeyondTheNow]

Speaking as an outsider, I don't have the same awareness on specific military aspects that members do, but I think it's vitally important that women have access to all of the same opportunities as men do in all professions.

However, that being said, I'll be the first one to admit that there are women in fields where men typically dominate who have no business being there.  I truly hope that all doors are opened for those who want it and can prove they're up to the task.  But it's also important that they first examine whether it's an appropriate fit for them, rather than just doing something because they can or feel that they have something to prove. (Which in itself is fine, but not if it's for the wrong reasons) Not all do, which is too bad. I've worked with some women who fit into that category and haven't fully contemplated (or don't realize) what the realities are of their capabilities (fully encompassing the physical, mental, emotional and spiritual aspects needed for whatever the position). Unfortunately, rather than making it easier for those who want to follow in their foot-steps, they inadvertently make it harder by being poor examples. My  :2c: